Recommended
Recommended
More Related Content
What's hot
What's hot (20)
Similar to Nan L. Kalke MWERA presentation October 19, 2017
Similar to Nan L. Kalke MWERA presentation October 19, 2017 (20)
Recently uploaded
Recently uploaded (20)
Nan L. Kalke MWERA presentation October 19, 2017
- 1. How Faculty Assessments of Degree Completion Likelihood Shape their Advising Relationships with Doctoral Students Nancy L. Kalke, PhD Capella University MidWestern Educational Research Association’s Annual Meeting October 19, 2017 1
- 2. Statement of the Problem Doctoral student attrition, measured in the early 1960s, has remained at slightly below 50% across all disciplines at United States institutions of higher education Attrition rates ranging across discipline from approximately 14% to 85% 2
- 3. Literature Review 3 Graduate Faculty-Student Relationships Across Multiple Institutions: •Anderson & Swazey (1998) •Berelson (1960) •Bowen & Rudenstine (1992) •Knox, Schlosser, Pruitt, & Hill (2006) •Lovitts (2001) •Nettles & Millett (2006) •Noy & Ray (2012) •Wilson (1965) Graduate Faculty-Student Relationships Within a Single Institution: •Barnes & Austin (2009) •Ferrer de Valero (2001) •Girves & Wemmerus (1988) •Gardner (2009) •Golde (2005) •Maher, Ford, & Thompson (2004) •Manathunga (2005) •Nerad & Cerny (1993)
- 4. Literature Review 4 Graduate Faculty-Student Relationships Across Multiple Institutions: •Anderson & Swazey (1998) •Berelson (1960) •Bowen & Rudenstine (1992) •Knox, Schlosser, Pruitt, & Hill (2006) •Lovitts (2001) •Nettles & Millett (2006) •Noy & Ray (2012) •Wilson (1965) Graduate Faculty-Student Relationships Within a Single Institution: •Barnes & Austin (2009) •Ferrer de Valero (2001) •Girves & Wemmerus (1988) •Gardner (2009) •Golde (2005) •Maher, Ford, & Thompson (2004) •Manathunga (2005) •Nerad & Cerny (1993) Studies with a focus on specific advising relationships
- 5. Purpose of the Study • To explore with experienced doctoral advisors the differential approaches they have taken with four categories of advisees. 5 Categories of Advisees upon Entering Final Stage of Ph. D. Program Expected to graduate High Low Completed degree Yes Type 1 Type 3 No Type 2 Type 4
- 6. Instrument and Participants • Interviews with open-ended questions • Purposeful sample • Self-selected from graduate faculty of four U.S. doctorate-granting RU/VH located in the Great Lakes or Plains regions (Carnegie Classifications) with more than 50 graduates in 2013 from social sciences field. 6
- 7. Instrument and Participants • Selection criteria: • In a tenure-track position. • Have been at the institution for at least 10 years. • Have advised some doctoral students who have completed and some who have not completed. • Faculty from sociology, anthropology, and political science • Recruitment letter sent to 542 faculty members. • Response rate was 24 out of 488 or 5%. • 20 faculty members were interviewed; 18 usable transcripts. 7
- 8. Data Analysis • Qualitative • Grounded theory approach • Open coding • In Vivo used in first coding cycle • Category labels used in second coding cycle • Themes 8
- 9. 9
- 10. 10 Themes Characterizing Advisee Types Advisee Type Primary Themes Secondary Themes Type One Focused, independent, self-motivated, smart Accepting of criticism Early advising start Dissertation topic related Academic career goal to advisor’s research Effective use of committee Type Two Change of career goal Moved Personal, family issues Perfectionistic or smart Type Three Extra advisor effort Poor academic research career fit Family responsibilities Poor academic performance Fieldwork challenges Not accepting of criticism, self-doubt or was absent Type Four Poor academic research career fit Poor academic performance Family responsibilities
- 11. Focused, independent, self- motivated, smart Professor Auguste illustrated focus in this theme in his description of an advisee who, he stated, was, “more typical of the people” he’s worked with who are “pretty focused and move through with very little delay or side tracking.” This description in comparison to how Professor Jurgen described a Type Four advisee who struggled and did not finish: “He started on a thesis and then just basically drifted away. I think he’s finally giving up hope of ever getting it…he had tremendous promise…he just got interested in other things actually.” 11
- 12. Early advising start • Previous relationship • Professor Daniel described a man he had known for a long time and encouraged to attend graduate school at his university; • Common research interests • Professor Max recruited his advisee because her interests were a good fit with his research. • Professor Jane stated her advisee, “basically chose me from the beginning because they wanted to work in the area that I work in. So they actually start talking to me from the day they walk in the door.” 12
- 13. Extra advisor effort Extra efforts were varied, from Professor Daniel’s description of needing to keep “prodding” his advisee, to Professor Harriet’s statement that it “…took kicking and screaming and pushing” and “a lot of time on multiple drafts” to get the dissertation done. Several interviewees discussed that they needed to be more directive. Professor Jane, for example, explained that “towards the end I was just like being extremely directive, like, you’re going to have to do this and you’re going to have to do [that]….” 13
- 14. Academic research career fit Type One: Professor Gary specifically identified students wanting “to go to the most prestigious university” as a difference between the successful and unsuccessful student. Type Two: Professor Paul stated that his advisee, realized at some point that just temperamentally he was not well suited to the research career. He had a 9:00 to 5:00 job and found it difficult to deal with a very flexible academic schedule. And he found the process of putting together a research proposal to be stressful. And, so I think he made what I feel, is a really very mature decision, which is to understand what sort of career he would be happiest pursuing…before he got too far along. 14
- 15. Academic research career fit (cont.) Type Three: Professor Karl described his experience with students who, …might enter academia with a kind of idealistic view and then see how hard certain aspects of academic life and work are, and they develop different leanings. I know some students who eventually said, no, I don’t want a job at an RI university. I want a job, rather, at a teaching college. So they became disgruntled with the research process. Type Four: Professor Harriet described an advisee who enjoyed teaching but, really never could put her focus on doing the research. 15
- 16. Poor academic performance Type Three: Varied descriptions ranging from a “weak student” who Professor Jane stated “should not have been let into the Ph. D. program,” to “meandering” in Professor Max’s description, to poor writing in Professor Gary’s description. Type Four: Professor Karl stated it is not always clear whether or not a student who is struggling will eventually succeed: If the question isn’t clear, if the literature and the research methods are not astute, then people will run into challenges and they get frustrated and give up at some point. And for a committee and an advisor it’s not always a clear decision that it will be a successful story, or that it will stay sometimes as a gray zone. And maybe we tend to give the student the benefit of the doubt, and say, well, he’s come this far, or she’s come this far, and now we don’t want to send this paper back the third time, let’s see how the data collection and the writing works, maybe that would go more smoothly than expected. 16
- 17. Criticism, self-doubt, and absence Type Three: Professor Harriet shared that the characteristic she had just described about an advisee, of throwing out current work that is not perfect and starting over again, is “the single most common feature of people who, if they graduate, they graduate because the advisor is committed to pushing them through the program.” Professor Jane described a student in three parts: Kept changing topics, was really in this identity crisis, not sure she wanted an academic job, and couldn’t deal with criticism well. So, she’d give us some stuff and we’d make all these critiques and then she would like totally disappear for a year and come back with a totally new project. So nothing ever moved forward because she kept hiding from us and insisting that she would self-train and so she was screwing it all up. 17
- 18. Family responsibilities Type Two: Professor Alexis described an advisee who had a tremendous number of family obligations and health issues to where it really just became impossible at the end for her to meet the graduate school deadlines, even with an extension or two. Type Three: Professor Anthony stated, generally, for an advisee who struggled through the program but did graduate: Parenthood has made a lot of difference because they are really devoted to their kids and it just doesn’t give them a chance to be the distracted academic that many of us are when we’re obsessively thinking about what we’re thinking about. You just can’t do that when you’ve got kids in the same way. 18
- 19. Family responsibilities Type Four: Professor Jurgen described an advisee who “had tremendous promise” but “just go interested in other things…first raising his kids and then figuring out what to do when the kids move on.” 19
- 20. Implications for Practice For the faculty advisor • Strategies to assist students in persisting and completing • Facilitate a transfer to another advisor if student has “stalled out” • Importance of a topic that is relevant and personal to the student and to help them keep a focused narrative in their dissertation writing (too easy to go off on a tangent). • Discuss career goal and what is needed to achieve it. • Connect advisee with other resources including committee member expertise 20
- 21. Implications for Practice For the student • Strategies to assist students in persisting and completing • Actively choose an advisor who is a fit for you (e.g., research area, level of guidance). • Find a topic that is relevant and personal to you and stay focused. • Do not be afraid to ask for help or to appear incompetent. • Be clear about your career goal and what is needed to achieve it. • Use other resources including committee member expertise 21
- 22. Implications for Practice For the department • Provide orientation, writing, career, and research assistance. • Assist students in choosing and switching advisors 22
- 23. Study Limitations 23 • Data collection method • Self-reported data • Selection bias
- 24. Recommendations for Research 24 • Interview faculty advisors from additional disciplinary fields to explore similarities and differences between disciplines. • Explore differences in faculty and student demographics (i.e., gender and ethnicity) and institutional size.
- 25. Thank You Your questions are welcome. Contact Information: • Nan Kalke • nkalke@umn.edu • 612-385-4231 25
Editor's Notes
- The Council of Graduate Schools’ Ph. D. Completion Project (with baseline data as of October 9, 2006) reported an overall cumulative mean ten-year attrition rate of 43% (Denecke, Frasier, & Redd, 2009). The range has been found to be from 14% in the biomedical and behavioral sciences to 85% in public administration and public affairs This study will focus on the disciplinary field of social sciences with a 44% attrition rate (Council of Graduate Schools PhD Completion Project) There is a cost to the individual and to the institution when students do not complete the program with a Ph. D. degree: A cost that extends beyond the institutional instructional cost per student and the individual’s lost time and opportunity cost. The cost is the loss of “a large portion of students who have been judged by faculty and admissions committees to be among the very brightest and talented in the world” (Denecke, Frasier, & Redd, 2009, p. 36). This study’s focus is specifically on the attrition that happens in the final stage of a student’s doctoral program (i.e., after passing qualifying examinations).
- A review of the literature on Ph. D. completion concludes that much is known about doctoral student attrition, with the most frequently cited factors found to impact doctoral student attrition being financial resources and the faculty advisor. Research has confirmed that a faculty mentor or advisor who provides support, interest, information, and guidance has a positive impact on doctoral student completion (Bowen & Rudenstine, 1992; Lovitts, 2001; Maher, Ford, & Thompson, 2004; Nettles & Millett, 2006).
- Few studies have focused on the perspective of the doctoral faculty advisor (Barnes & Austin, 2009; Bowen & Rudenstine, 1992; Knox, Schlosser, Pruitt, & Hill, 2006; Lovitts, 2001; Manathunga, 2005). Fewer still have specifically explored faculty assessments of their doctoral student advisees (Barnes & Austin, 2009; Knox, Schlosser, Pruitt, & Hill, 2006; Manathunga, 2005). No studies have asked faculty to consider to what extent their assessment that a particular student will complete her/his degree plays a varying role in the subsequent advising relationship and eventual degree completion.
- Tinto’s (1993) three-stage model on doctoral student retention; and Girves and Wemmerus’ (1988) degree progression model. Barnes (2009) used these two theoretical models in a study of 25 advisors representing three disciplines (natural sciences, social sciences, and humanities) and one professional area (education). Barnes noted, “It is the notion of the importance that advisors have in the progression and persistence of doctoral students that provides an overlap between these two models...“ (p. 328).
- Interview questions were designed to be broad, with the intention to allow the faculty advisor to describe their experiences and perspectives with a focus on one, several, or all four types of students. An open-ended structure was designed to allow the participant to describe their experience with the individual advisee they identified for each category as well as any contextual components they recalled. Open-ended interview questions allowed the participant to address both the typical steps in the advising process and any differences they recalled specific to the individual advising relationship that fit one of the four categories. Primarily the participant was asked to “tell the story” for each type of advisee they selected
- Criteria were used to select faculty who had enough years of experience, as a doctoral faculty advisor and as a committee chair, to have advised students through the final dissertation stage of their doctoral program with some students having completed the degree. Ten years of experience also allowed the faculty member to know the culture of the institution. Factoring out ineligible and unavailable replies, the response rate was 24 out of 488, or 5%. Of the 24 faculty members who responded affirmatively to be interviewed and were sent the follow-up request for two available times, four did not respond. A second request sent to the four after two weeks also received no response. A final participant sample of 20 was established. Telephone interview appointments with the 20 participants were scheduled and held between September 15 and October 29, 2015. Conducting interviews over the telephone was a practical way to interview participants who lived at a distance from the researcher and across several states in the U.S. All but one interview was conducted using the telephone, regardless of location, to provide an equitable and consistent experience. One participant urged the researcher to meet for an in-person interview. The researcher agreed. This interview had to be excluded from the results due to the noisy environment that prevented an audio-recording. Another interview was also excluded from the results because the audio-recording stopped after five minutes. The other 18 interviews were recorded for subsequent transcription and analysis
- “…the collection of data in a natural setting sensitive to the people and places under study, and data analysis that is both inductive and deductive and establishes patterns or themes” (Creswell, 2013, p. 44) the “intent of a grounded theory study is to move beyond description and to generate or discover a theory.” He continued by explaining that “participants in the study would all have experienced the process, and the development of the theory might help explain practice or provide a framework for further research” (Creswell, 2013, p. 83). The grounded theory approach is particularly relevant to this study as the participants were experienced faculty advisors whose views on advising will contribute much data to the research question being studied. Interviewing experienced faculty advisors provided information from the faculty advisor perspective to explore and develop a general framework on what happens during this time within this important relationship. Corbin and Strauss (2008) stated that, “analysis involves what is commonly termed coding, taking raw data and raising it to a conceptual level” After each interview, the researcher added to the notes any thoughts about possible emerging themes. Creswell (2013) identifies this process as “memoing” (p. 89). The written transcript, upon receiving it from the transcriber, was read through fully to “obtain a general sense of the information and to reflect on its overall meaning” (Creswell, 2003, p. 191). After a read through of all transcripts, each transcript was first pre-coded on hard-copy, using underlining and circling to identify potential code words, and quotations that may be used to illustrate the code (Saldana, 2013). Next, the “In Vivo Coding” (Saldana, 2013, p. 91) method was used by entering words of the interviewee themselves, captured on the transcripts, into an excel spreadsheet using an anonymous reference identifier for each transcript, entering the in vivo code word or phrase, and the sentence or paragraph that contained the coded word or phrase. In this second coding cycle process, initial code words that related to a category were provided that category label. For example, the initial in vivo code words: “guide,” “help them get through,” hands-on,” “facilitator,” “mentor,” “meet regularly,” were categorized as “guide through program.” The next coding process included a search for themes by reviewing each interviewee response, and the applied category labels, in the following areas: advising approach; as to whether the faculty assessment of each advisee’s degree completion likelihood was high (types 1 and 2) or low (types 3 and 4); and, then what transpired in the advising relationship for each advisee type. Analyzing each component of the data by comparing the participant’s response to the same question across advisee type and comparing her/his responses across advisee type to other advisor responses was an important procedure in grouping together similar concepts and to identify differences. Themes found to be similar were collated and refined into primary and secondary themes. Primary and secondary themes were found that characterized each category basically following the interview question structure. As Saldana (2013) explained, using quotations from Butler-Kisber (2010), about the “winnowing down of themes: Butler Kisber (2010, pp. 50-61) advises that this process consists of extracting verbatim “significant statements” from the data, “formulating meanings” about them through the researcher’s interpretations, clustering these meanings into a series of organizing themes, then elaborating on the themes through rich written description (p. 176).
- Table provides information for the 18 faculty advisor participants, using an alias name, on gender and Ph. D. conferral year, organized by PhD conferral year, earliest to most recent. Of the 18 participants, five are female. Ph. D. conferral year ranged from 1958 to 2003, the median year was 1977. Four participants had the conferral year of 1976. Half of them received their Ph. D. degree in the 1970s. Faculty advisors who were interviewed are not identified by their own names. Rather, to protect their anonymity, each interviewee was given a pseudonym reflecting only the correct gender. The title of professor is used for every interviewee regardless of the faculty member’s actual title. The date each interviewee received their Ph. D. degree is included as that is considered not to be a risk to anonymity and is considered to provide context to the number of years they may have been eligible to advise doctoral students (depending on the specific requirements of the institution) as well as how long ago they were a doctoral student receiving advice from an advisor themselves.
- Primary themes were found that characterized all four advisee types Secondary themes were found in three of the four advisee types
- Sixteen of 18 (89%) interviewees included positive student characteristics in their descriptions of a Type One advisee who did well throughout the program and completed. Professor Auguste illustrated focus in this theme in his description of an advisee who, he stated, was, “more typical of the people” he’s worked with who are “pretty focused and move through with very little delay or side tracking.” This description in comparison to how Professor Jurgen described a Type Four advisee who struggled and did not finish: “He started on a thesis and then just basically drifted away. I think he’s finally giving up hope of ever getting it…he had tremendous promise…he just got interested in other things actually.” Focused and independent can also be found in the literature. Slightly more than half (53%) of the faculty responding to Gardner’s (2009) survey found a student “lacking in drive, focus, motivation, or initiative” (p. 104) as the reason a student did not complete their degree program. Lovitts (2001) found in interviews with 33 faculty members, that student characteristics identified by both high and low Ph. D. producing faculty members as those that contributed to a successful advising relationship were “very bright, independent, self-motivated, hardworking, dependable, talented, resourceful, mature, articulate, and had good social skills” (pp. 280-281). Motivation is a prominent theme in the literature on doctoral student attrition (Berelson, 1960; Ferrer de Valero, 2001; Gardner, 2009; Maher, Ford, & Thompson, 2004; Wilson, 1965). Thirty-eight to 47% of graduate deans, graduate faculty, and recent degree recipients responded to Berelson’s (1960) survey that “lack [of] proper motivation” (p. 169) was a reason for doctoral student attrition. Ferrer de Valero (2001) found three-quarters of the faculty identified student motivation as a strong factor for student success and 42% of students identified motivation as important. Student intelligence, also described as “bright” or “smart” by the interviewees is also found in the literature. In Berelson’s (1960) survey of graduate deans, graduate faculty, and recent alumni, he found that most graduate faculty (64%) indicated “lack of intellectual ability to do the work” as the “most important” reason for attrition (p. 169). Wilson (1965) in a survey of graduate deans and faculty identified student attributes (ability, aptitude, and persistence) as a factor in lengthy time to degree. Golde (2005) identified students who were academically underprepared in comparison with their peers as a reason for attrition from a doctoral program. Schnaiberg (2005) addressed the student characteristics of “bright” and “dull” in the following way: Those who enroll in our graduate programs come with traits that might be quite uncorrelated with their training advancement. At the extreme, some of these traits may actually preclude their completing their doctoral work. I noted after my own graduation from the University of Michigan that the attrition of my cohort was bimodal: some of the brightest, as well as some of the dullest students dropped out. The brightest drop out in part because they become alienated from the tasks and roles of graduate school. The dullest also drop out more, because they are labeled as inadequate or failing (pp. 31-32).
- Eight of 18 (44%) interviewees stated they either recruited the student they exemplified as a Type One advisee, who successfully progressed from passing their preliminary examinations to graduation, or the student expressed at the start of their program that they wanted to work with them. Literature provides validation of this theme. Nerad and Cerny (1993) found that students who reported feeling treated as “junior colleagues” was a factor in degree completion. Ferrer de Valerio (2001) reported finding the relationship students had with faculty members in their program had an impact on degree completion. Maher, Ford, and Thompson (2004) found that “faculty advisors often carefully choose among doctoral students to decide to whom and to what extent they are willing to provide meaningful mentoring relationship” (p. 387).
- Eight of 18 (44%) interviewees described putting additional effort into helping their struggling advisees to finish the program (Type Three) and earn the Ph. D. These extra efforts were varied, from Professor Daniel’s description of needing to keep “prodding” his advisee, to Professor Harriet’s statement that it “…took kicking and screaming and pushing” and “a lot of time on multiple drafts” to get the dissertation done. Several interviewees discussed that they needed to be more directive. Professor Jane, for example, explained that “towards the end I was just like being extremely directive, like, you’re going to have to do this and you’re going to have to do [that]….” Extra advisor effort is supported in the literature as an important component of degree completion. Golde (2000) found that “the amount of time spent, the quality of the interactions, and a sense of care from advisor to student were all important” (p. 220) in helping students progress in a doctoral degree program. Barnes and Austin’s (2009) findings are similar to what many of the interviewee’s described as extra effort. In particular, helping advisees find a topic or dataset for their dissertation, helping them “cope with failure” and “select committee members” (Barnes and Austin, 2009, P. 304).
- More than 25% of interviewees described academic research career fit for each of the four advisee types. In seven of the 18 (39%) interviewee descriptions of the Type One advisee who does well throughout the program and graduates, the advisee was described as having an academic research position as a goal, or as having achieved it. Professor Gary specifically identified students wanting “to go to the most prestigious university” as a difference between the successful and unsuccessful student. Five of 11 (45%) interviewees, in their descriptions of a Type Two advisee. stated that a primary reason they did not complete was because they took a position that did not require a Ph. D. degree or they had a change of career goal. For example, Professor Paul stated that his advisee, …realized at some point that just temperamentally he was not well suited to the research career. He had a 9:00 to 5:00 job and found it difficult to deal with a very flexible academic schedule. And he found the process of putting together a research proposal to be stressful. And, so I think he made what I feel, is a really very mature decision, which is to understand what sort of career he would be happiest pursuing…before he got too far along.
- Seven of the 18 (39%) interviewees included in their descriptions of a Type Three the student either found out that an academic research career was not a fit for them after all, took a job that did not require a Ph. D. degree, or did not have a career goal that required a Ph. D. degree. Among the advisees described for this Type Three, one advisee’s primary goal was teaching; one doubted her capability and had no clear career goal; one wasn’t sure she wanted an academic job, three advisees already had teaching positions that did not require research and publication. Among the Type Four advisees, seven of 12 (58%) interviewees stated that the advisee they identified as a student who struggled through the program and did not complete, either could not conceptualize a research question to focus on, had difficulty with the research itself, or wanted to teach and found a teaching position that did not require a Ph. D. degree. For example, Professor Harriet described an advisee who enjoyed teaching but “really never could put her focus on doing the research.” A principal point in the interview descriptions around the academic research career choice is not the students who are clear they are in training to be an academician in a research institution; it is the students who find they are not proficient or do not prefer to do research. It is especially concerning when this conflict is not realized until the final dissertation phase of the doctoral program and contributes to lengthy times to degree in the case of students who complete the program, and withdrawal from the program for others. The following statement in Berelson’s questionnaire was agreed to by a majority of the recent Ph.D. recipients and, in similar proportions, of the graduate faculty in the humanities (70% agreed) and social sciences (55% agreed): “Doctoral work suffers because many students don’t really want to be researchers but have to go through research programs in order to get the ‘union badge’ for college teaching” (Berelson, 1960, p. 92).
- Poor academic performance was a primary theme found in interviewee descriptions of a Type Three and a Type Four advisee. Seven of 18 (39%) interviewees identified poor academic performance in their description of Type Three advisees Varied descriptions of poor academic performance were provided, ranging from a “weak student” who Professor Jane stated “should not have been let into the Ph. D. program,” to “meandering” in Professor Max’s description, to poor writing in Professor Gary’s description, to “confident and workman-like” in Professor Woodrow’s description. Six of 12 (50%) interviewees identified some type of poor academic performance in their descriptions of a Type Four advisee Two of the six advisees described here were counseled out of the program. All six were described as struggling early in their program, particularly with their preliminary, comprehensive examinations. However, as Professor Karl stated, whether or not a student who is struggling eventually succeeds is not always a clear decision: If the question isn’t clear, if the literature and the research methods are not astute, then people will run into challenges and they get frustrated and give up at some point. And for a committee and an advisor it’s not always a clear decision that it will be a successful story, or that it will stay sometimes as a gray zone. And maybe we tend to give the student the benefit of the doubt, and say, well, he’s come this far, or she’s come this far, and now we don’t want to send this paper back the third time, let’s see how the data collection and the writing works, maybe that would go more smoothly than expected.
- Six of 18 (33%) interviewees included in their descriptions of a Type Three advisee who struggled through the final stage of their doctoral program, that they had a tendency not to deal well with criticism or experienced self-doubt, often resulting in an absence before returning to complete the degree.
- Family responsibilities was identified as a primary or secondary theme in three of the four advisee types. Four of 11 (36%) interviewees described personal or family issues as a reason a Type Two advisee In the examples of the Type Two advisee, the interviewees described severe or numerous personal and family issues, often occurring together for a student. For example, the student Professor Alexis had in mind as an example of an advisee who was doing well but did not graduate, is one he described as “a student who had a tremendous number of family obligations and health issues to where it really just became impossible at the end for her to meet the graduate school deadlines, even with an extension or two.” Family responsibilities was identified as a secondary theme by four of 18 (22%) interviewees in their descriptions of a Type Three Four of 12 (33%) interviewees included family responsibilities in their descriptions of a Type Four advisee
- Family responsibilities was identified as a primary or secondary theme in three of the four advisee types. Four of 12 (33%) interviewees included family responsibilities in their descriptions of a Type Four advisee
- For the faculty advisor there are several key findings that may provide guidance in particular for the advisee who is struggling to complete their doctoral program. For the department administrator, it may be illuminating or validating, to read of the extraordinary efforts some of the interviewees made to help their advisee(s) complete the program. For most faculty advisors, advising activities are conducted for internal rather than external reward. Providing departmental opportunities for orientation, writing, and research assistance can help provide more consistent and equitable resources to students and provide some relief to the advisor.
- The descriptions served as a reminder that the process of completing a dissertation is one that takes continued focus and persistence. It was comforting to hear that faculty advisors expected students who have passed their preliminary examinations to have the ability to complete the program, and most of them were willing to provide the guidance each advisee needed to do so. Writing a dissertation is inherently isolating. Though participation in departmental events and with other advisees is helpful, the data in this study can provide a beneficial view of doctoral student advising across multiple advisors. It was helpful for this researcher to know other students experienced similar struggles. For the faculty advisor there are several key findings that may provide guidance in particular for the advisee who is struggling to complete their doctoral program. For the department administrator, it may be illuminating or validating, to read of the extraordinary efforts some of the interviewees made to help their advisee(s) complete the program. For most faculty advisors, advising activities are conducted for internal rather than external reward. Providing departmental opportunities for orientation, writing, and research assistance can help provide more consistent and equitable resources to students and provide some relief to the advisor.
- For the department administrator, it may be illuminating or validating, to read of the extraordinary efforts some of the interviewees made to help their advisee(s) complete the program. For most faculty advisors, advising activities are conducted for internal rather than external reward. Providing departmental opportunities for orientation, writing, and research assistance can help provide more consistent and equitable resources to students and provide some relief to the advisor.
- Restricting the sample population in combination with the low response rate, while providing the opportunity to explore the experience of experienced faculty advisors in these settings, also limited the usefulness of the findings to other settings. It is hoped that the use of thick description in reporting the results of this study was sufficient to provide the opportunity for readers to transfer this study’s findings to other settings (Creswell, 2013). A single interview of approximately 60-minutes over the telephone was the only data collection method used for this study. The 60-minute length of time for the interview was adequate time for all interviewees to answer the pre-formulated set of questions but did not provide the type of “prolonged engagement in the field” that helps to establish credibility to the findings In addition, utilizing only the single interview with no other data sources (e.g., student records) provided no “triangulation of the data” that would have assisted in validation of the data (Creswell, 2013, p. 246). Interviewees were asked to remember their experiences with four types of advisees who had either completed the program or had withdrawn from the program. There was no additional external validation of the specific circumstances or outcomes of the student examples provided. Validation, rather, came in the form of “face validation” where through thick description the reader may be able to recognize the experience that was shared (Creswell, 2013, p. 247). Even so, memory is selective and can be influenced through knowledge of the outcome.